Comment from Jeff Porten
One quibble: for 150 years, communications and storage were protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the relatively harder process of getting access to paper. Electronic surveillance started with copper...
View ArticleComment from Ian Crew
The thing is that a law like this would only catch the stupid criminals. These laws always treat encryption like some big, mysterious thing that's exclusively under the control of the device...
View ArticleComment from E B
Don't forget the other big player in this controversy: The Electronic Freedom Foundation. EFF was created by some of the most important pioneers in the industry, and they do a great service.
View ArticleComment from RS
Even before electronic communication, letters could be sent in code. So it's not really the first time that police can't access communications without a warrant.
View ArticleComment from D N
Just a small addition to your statement, it's not that people can create these apps, they have created them already (and they're not that hard to create,...
View ArticleComment from Giorgio from Italy
The is an elephant missing in the matter: encryption protects from the government but also from others, like competitors, criminals, data miners etc...Compromising encryption for tha sake of government...
View ArticleComment from Michael
So when a backdoor is breached by a nefarious party, who's going to be held accountable and liable? Is the governing body that mandated it going to be stand up and take blame? Governments are highly...
View ArticleComment from AnoneemousOne
You know something is wrong when the US Government tries to sell the notion that to defeat terrorist, the first solution is the take privacy and digital security away from Americans.
View ArticleComment from Norm M
This is the main argument, in my opinion. The bad guys can always encrypt securely, so adding backdoors just removes our privacy for nothing! The article should have made this point! Even if encryption...
View ArticleComment from Darren P Meyer
There's also a cultural component. LE has generally had access to things written or recorded, but not informal conversations (for practical reasons—there's no record of them). Now our informal...
View ArticleComment from Curt
Rich,I think it's a strategic error to lump encrypted *storage* and encrypted *communications* into the same discussion. There's a long history of case law (and the 5th amendment) backing up the right...
View ArticleComment from Adam Engst
I'll add a bit about that - the article isn't so much about why back doors are stupid as why Apple is the one defending encryption in public.
View ArticleComment from Tommy Craft
This is a great article, and I can't wait to share it amongst my circle of friends. I did have one quibble though:From the article: "...since you can be compelled to unlock your phone (your passcode...
View ArticleComment from Nicholas Barnard
Well. If data is encrypted in flight the gov't is more than welcome to issue a warrant to obtain the encrypted data, but it's not decrypted (then potentially encrypted) until it's on a device tha...
View ArticleComment from Nicholas Barnard
I was also going to say the same thing. It'd be nice to be able to tweak the requirements for requiring a passcode. AFAIK it's required at startup, when the device hadn't been unlocked for three days,...
View ArticleComment from Simon
I can't really see why one would make such a distinction. The fingerprint is just a more convenient way to enter the passcode. If you cannot compel someone to give their passcode, why should you be...
View ArticleComment from Paul
The secret services spying schemes have nothing to do with terrorists or criminals and never have. The shere scale of them shows this. Logic dictates that the most common subject spied upon is the...
View ArticleComment from David Byrum
Thanks for an informative and well written article about a timely topic. As others have said I too will be passing this along to friends to read and consider. In this day and age, it is a bit uplifting...
View ArticleComment from Stephen Duncan
They already have the right to take your fingerprints on paper or a scanner. The phone is no different.
View Article
